Fake or Invalid Licence Alone Cannot Save the Insurer: Karnataka High Court modified the award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Karnataka High Court: The Single Bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, modified the impugned judgment holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable and the award amount be paid by Respondent 2-Insurance Company.

Background

The issue was raised by the appellant on fastening of liability by the impugned judgment awarding compensation of ₹8000 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The appeal was filed under Section 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 2 January 2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

The appellant referring to the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 argued that the Supreme Court in case while examining the defence of the Insurance Company observed that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person or a person not having a valid driving licence and hence held that it is obligatory on the part of the Insurance Company to substantiate the defence and a mere plea would not suffice. It was further contended that the law on the liability of the Insurance Company in the case of a fake, invalid or non-existent driving licence is no longer res integra.

The appellant while mentioning the judgment by the Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2017) 14 SCC 663 held that a driving licence is required with respect to the class of vehicles and not the type of vehicles and consequently, as a light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle, a holder of a light motor vehicle licence is competent to drive all vehicles of that class, including transport vehicles, and no separate endorsement is required. Thus, fastening of liability on the owner cannot be sustained.

Decision and Analysis

The Court while emphasising on the Swaran Singh case reiterated that merely stating that the driver of a vehicle did not have a licence or had an invalid or fake licence by itself is not enough to avoid liability by an Insurance Company. They must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Unless the breach is so fundamental that it has contributed to the cause of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability.

The Court specified that the Tribunal in the present case found that the driver had a licence for non-transport vehicles. Hence, the evidence pointed to the fact that the driver did not have a licence for a light goods vehicle. Thus, holding a breach of the insurance policy, the liability was fastened on the appellant-owner.

The Court held after considering the facts and evidences that the fastening of liability on the owner of the offending vehicle by the impugned award, cannot be sustained in terms of the settled law. The Court laying basis on the submissions deemed it apposite to allow the appeal and modified the impugned judgment and award. It further held both appellant-owner and Respondent 2 – Insurance Company jointly and severally liable, and the award amount in the first instance be paid by Respondent 2-Insurance Company. It was further specified that the remaining portion of the impugned award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed.

[Prakashsingh Holal v. Thimmesha Thimmappa, MFA No. 2584 of 2017, decided 15-4-2026¹]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant: Maruthi G.B., Advocate

For the Respondent: S.V. Hegde Mulkhand